Terrorism is not new. It's been practiced since the beginning of time. Planned actions against an enemy that anticipate and in fact require the death of the person or persons making the attack including the current suicide bombings are not new. Suicide bombings are typically common when one side in a violent conflict lacks the means for effective, conventional attacks, but are not limited to that condition. Our own troops have committed suicide attacks in warfare, and so have the Japanese and other nation's defenders.
During the Second World War Japanese kamikaze pilots and those who manned human guided torpedoes sank many ships during the Second World War resulting in a large loss of American life and warships. While Muslim suicide attacks are more numerous, frequent and media grabbing they are not necessarily more deadly.
Muslim terrorist organizations are also not new but they have increased in size and activity in the last century and are now being directed outside the Middle East. The mid-eastern nations have always been at war with one another, tribe against tribe and one religious sect against another, one of the most lasting and deadly being the Shiia Muslims against the Sunni.
The Sunnis and Shiias are fractionalized into disparate groups who violently disagree with one another. The Shiia for centuries have fought against the Sunni because the Shiia believe all Muslim leaders must be blood descendants of Muhammad or they are not legitimate. This disagreement resulted in the massacre of Muhammad’s grandson Hussein and family, direct descendents of Muhammad the prophet, which occurred in 680 CE. That blood fight has never been resolved. It was the Sunni faction that murdered the grandson of Muhammad and set off this war that has no end. There are a host of other internal Muslim disputes that divide these factions.
The Muslim religion as taught by the prophet Mohammed was very tolerant of other faiths, included women on an equal basis with men, and believed in peace and justice. It is the endless fighting and struggle for power within the Muslim world and the attempts at colonialism by the British and the US that have produced the Muslim militancy and terrorism that has upset our world.
It was the British whose reckless quest of empire arbitrarily drew lines demarking the present state of Iraq including the Kurds, some Turks, the Sunnis and Shiites along with other sects. Saddam Hussein, although a ruthless dictator, kept a cap on these feuding tribes and religious sects and his removal knocked the lid of the kettle allowing it to boil over.
Then there is the problem of the advance of technology. It’s current technology that allows for explosives to be strapped to suicide bombers and for the planting of radio activated Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) and this popular method of terrorism will not go away soon. This practice will grow in popularity and spread to other nations unless technology can somehow answer with a counter technology that will allow for satellite or other means of early detection of these explosives and circumvention of the detonating devices. However, that technological advance in itself would likely bode ill will for personal freedoms and public counter measures to tyranny worldwide - equivalent to disarming citizens of personal firearms here in the US. When the public is denied access to any form of weapons to defend themselves they will become even greater victims of those who control weapons technology.
No matter how you spin it, the world is in for major depression of human rights, rights to assemble, free speech, etc. Technology, long considered a salvation for the human race may well become its destruction.
Gary
Monday, November 20, 2006
Election '08 - Al Gore to the Rescue
I have never given up on Al Gore. His defeat in 2000 was maybe the best thing that ever happened for him - it tempered him and humbled him - even though it severely hurt the people of the United States and other nations. I like to think Al is much wiser than before and that he has been enlightened by the failure of policies he previously supported like free trade agreements that morphed into modified agreements with damaging results for all but corporatists and the wealthy.
Assuming he decides to run, if he hasn't learned from his mistakes and if he relies too much on the establishment Dem strategists, he will fail again as a candidate. If he doesn't modify and compromise his stand on gun control, abortion, etc., all the non-critical issues (in the large scheme of things) that hurt him in 2000 he will fail again. International issues, foreign affairs, the economy and the environment are his strong suits. National security, immigration, corruption, education and healthcare are the kitchen table items he and the rest will run on. Al Gore has a leg up and good credibility on all of these issues.
I want vindication of my total commitment and support of him since 1988. Al Gore in my estimation is the best candidate out there - providing he learned from his mistakes and providing he shakes off influence from the established, machine politicians from within the party - like Carville, the Clintons, corporate lobbyists, etc.
Al Gore has embraced Howard Dean, DFA, Moveon.org and the rest of the progressive movement so how can he return to the Washington insiders who likely will reject him in any event unless his support is so strong among progressives and the members of the party that he can't be refused?
Al Gore has become like a strong father figure to most Americans. He was right about the war, right about global warming, and right about airline security. He could star in a remake of Father Knows Best. He and Howard Dean were the ones with the most foresight and courage prior to 2004. They were anti-war when being anti-war wasn't cool. Their predictions have come true.
Americans like a good story of someone who was unfairly beaten, pushed down, but rose from the dust and came back victorious. The whole country now knows Al Gore actually won in 2000 and was cheated from his destiny - and we as a nation were cheated from ours. Al is a sentimental favorite.
If Al Gore runs, bar any major gaffes, he will win. I pick Howard Dean as my first choice for VP and Barack Obama second. However, a good choice for VP from an electoral vote and political strategy might be either Governor Richardson or Governor Brian Schweitzer, both popular Western state governors that would deliver at least two or more western state's electoral votes. John Edwards would also be acceptable in a pinch although winning over the wayward south just doesn't have real potential at this time.
Whoever of that group becomes our nominee I will support with all my effort; anything to prevent that bunch of self-serving, corrupt whores and flim-flam artists from the Republican Party from maintaining control. And that includes Gulianni, running on opportune celebrity rather than merit, and McCain. McCain has lost my respect. He is not a true maverick and although somewhat centrist, has proved he will compromise, equivocate and suck-up to anyone who he thinks will improve his chances to become the nominee.
Most candidates run for office for the wrong reasons; power, influence and wealth. Even a failed candidate for the presidency profits from a good run. They become national celebrities. Their national profile and name recognition increases dramatically, they wallow like pigs in all the media attention, they gain power and influence, they get to keep any leftover money from contributors, and they can earn a princely living thereafter from speakers fees and book sales.
Al Gore already has all these things. If he runs I believe it will be for the right reasons only; a deep and abiding patriotism, and a commitment and acceptance of the responsibility to help others and save this nation and the world from itself - if it is humanly possible.
Gary
Assuming he decides to run, if he hasn't learned from his mistakes and if he relies too much on the establishment Dem strategists, he will fail again as a candidate. If he doesn't modify and compromise his stand on gun control, abortion, etc., all the non-critical issues (in the large scheme of things) that hurt him in 2000 he will fail again. International issues, foreign affairs, the economy and the environment are his strong suits. National security, immigration, corruption, education and healthcare are the kitchen table items he and the rest will run on. Al Gore has a leg up and good credibility on all of these issues.
I want vindication of my total commitment and support of him since 1988. Al Gore in my estimation is the best candidate out there - providing he learned from his mistakes and providing he shakes off influence from the established, machine politicians from within the party - like Carville, the Clintons, corporate lobbyists, etc.
Al Gore has embraced Howard Dean, DFA, Moveon.org and the rest of the progressive movement so how can he return to the Washington insiders who likely will reject him in any event unless his support is so strong among progressives and the members of the party that he can't be refused?
Al Gore has become like a strong father figure to most Americans. He was right about the war, right about global warming, and right about airline security. He could star in a remake of Father Knows Best. He and Howard Dean were the ones with the most foresight and courage prior to 2004. They were anti-war when being anti-war wasn't cool. Their predictions have come true.
Americans like a good story of someone who was unfairly beaten, pushed down, but rose from the dust and came back victorious. The whole country now knows Al Gore actually won in 2000 and was cheated from his destiny - and we as a nation were cheated from ours. Al is a sentimental favorite.
If Al Gore runs, bar any major gaffes, he will win. I pick Howard Dean as my first choice for VP and Barack Obama second. However, a good choice for VP from an electoral vote and political strategy might be either Governor Richardson or Governor Brian Schweitzer, both popular Western state governors that would deliver at least two or more western state's electoral votes. John Edwards would also be acceptable in a pinch although winning over the wayward south just doesn't have real potential at this time.
Whoever of that group becomes our nominee I will support with all my effort; anything to prevent that bunch of self-serving, corrupt whores and flim-flam artists from the Republican Party from maintaining control. And that includes Gulianni, running on opportune celebrity rather than merit, and McCain. McCain has lost my respect. He is not a true maverick and although somewhat centrist, has proved he will compromise, equivocate and suck-up to anyone who he thinks will improve his chances to become the nominee.
Most candidates run for office for the wrong reasons; power, influence and wealth. Even a failed candidate for the presidency profits from a good run. They become national celebrities. Their national profile and name recognition increases dramatically, they wallow like pigs in all the media attention, they gain power and influence, they get to keep any leftover money from contributors, and they can earn a princely living thereafter from speakers fees and book sales.
Al Gore already has all these things. If he runs I believe it will be for the right reasons only; a deep and abiding patriotism, and a commitment and acceptance of the responsibility to help others and save this nation and the world from itself - if it is humanly possible.
Gary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)